Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1861 edition. Excerpt: ...such circumstances as may induce the drawer to entertain a. reasonable expectation, that the bill will be accepted and paid, the person so drawing it, is entitled to notice. The question therefore is, whether in this instance there were any funds in hand at the time of drawing applicable to the bill, or a ground of reasonable expectation that when the bill became due the drawee would come forward and pay it. As to funds, though there were goods of the defendant in the drawee's hands at the time of the drawing, yet they were not such as could be properly set against the drawing. _ And as to any reasonable expectation that the bill would be paid, it was neither accepted, nor had the defendant any claim upon the drawer to have it honored, according to the due course of credit between them, until the end of the year." '. " lfthere never was any drawing between the parties but at the end of the year, or accepting of bills, how shall we say that the defendant was authorized to entertain a reasonable expectation that his bill would be honored? And if not, this falls within the rule laid down in Bi/ccrdi/re vs. Bellman, and notice was not necessary." See, also, Blacklzan vs. Doven,2 Campb_ 503; Ruclccr ct al. vs. Hi/ler, 16 East 43. In French rs. The Bank of Columbia, 4 Crunch 141-2, it was said by the Supreme Court of the United States, " to be the fair construction of the English cases, that a person having a right to draw in consequence of engagements between himself and the drawee, or from any other cause, ought to be considered as drawing upon funds in the hands of the drawee, and, therefore, as not coming within the exception to the general rule." In all ofthese cases it will be observed, that in...show more